The need for transdisciplinary reciprocities of influence gained prominence, in healthcare for example, twenty years ago. Transdisciplinary initiatives are different from multidisciplinary porfolios that merely aggregate or interdisciplinary innovation that creates different kinds of stovepipes albeit across established disciplines. Transdisciplinary initiatives involve collective intelligence that juxtaposes disciplinary perspectives and crystallizes them for a more holistic understanding of something. But therein lies the rub. Understanding of what?
Most well-intentioned transdisciplinary efforts are effective in stimulating innovation and establishing collaborative relationships that generate novelty. Many even have the intent of transltioning research to practice, typically by expecting or hoping for some translational magic as innovation becomes increasingly more mature and within reach of operational systems. Transdisciplinary translational initiatives are most effective when one starts with a commitment to specific needs of specific people. Such demand is unaware of boundaries between disciplines or offerings on the supply side, and it doesn't respect such boundaries.
Transdisciplinary innovation can occur on the demand side, as it were, with no need for translational magic at some future stage of development. This is one interpretation of how "bottom up" systems thinking is different from top-down abstractions. It requires a diversity of stakeholders to throw themselves, together, into some real-world problem at a community level where individuals are recognizable while also having to deal with a diversity of others. It's somewhat like the famed "skunk works" in Lockheed Martin of a bygone era.
But an enlightenment cannot be closed to the outside world as the concept of skunk works implies. It must be open to a small-world network of communities in which such collective intelligence is manifesting and collaborative innovation is occurring (islands of innovation). And it is different from the mere outsourcing of "open innovation." It is more like an archipelago in a "blue ocean" of continual reconfiguration and exploration of value delivery.
The new enlightenment has the capacity for discovery analogous to science if not the scientific revolution, but is decidedly is not limited to science let alone to hegemony of a scientific method. It has the character of dialectic in scientific community, but it is not limited to scientists. It is theoretical, empirical, open to a multiplicity of perspective, most notably a diversity of stakeholders.
While this may begin to sound as abstract as the analytical philosophy of the 20th century, to the contrary, it could not be more relevant to everyday experience. In a sense, it is a natural philosophy of life in community that has become confused and frustrated by the fragmented bounty of modernity. It is engaged, accretive, and selective. It is mindful and interpersonal. It accepts both passion and reason. It is both deeply personal and indefatigably responsible.
The need for transdisciplinary reciprocities of influence gained prominence, in healthcare for example, twenty years ago. Transdisciplinary initiatives are different from multidisciplinary porfolios that merely aggregate or interdisciplinary innovation that creates different kinds of stovepipes albeit across established disciplines. Transdisciplinary initiatives involve collective intelligence that juxtaposes disciplinary perspectives and crystallizes them for a more holistic understanding of something. But therein lies the rub. Understanding of what?
Most well-intentioned transdisciplinary efforts are effective in stimulating innovation and establishing collaborative relationships that generate novelty. Many even have the intent of transltioning research to practice, typically by expecting or hoping for some translational magic as innovation becomes increasingly more mature and within reach of operational systems. Transdisciplinary translational initiatives are most effective when one starts with a commitment to specific needs of specific people. Such demand is unaware of boundaries between disciplines or offerings on the supply side, and it doesn't respect such boundaries.
Transdisciplinary innovation can occur on the demand side, as it were, with no need for translational magic at some future stage of development. This is one interpretation of how "bottom up" systems thinking is different from top-down abstractions. It requires a diversity of stakeholders to throw themselves, together, into some real-world problem at a community level where individuals are recognizable while also having to deal with a diversity of others. It's somewhat like the famed "skunk works" in Lockheed Martin of a bygone era.
But an enlightenment cannot be closed to the outside world as the concept of skunk works implies. It must be open to a small-world network of communities in which such collective intelligence is manifesting and collaborative innovation is occurring (islands of innovation). And it is different from the mere outsourcing of "open innovation." It is more like an archipelago in a "blue ocean" of continual reconfiguration and exploration of value delivery.
The new enlightenment has the capacity for discovery analogous to science if not the scientific revolution, but is decidedly is not limited to science let alone to hegemony of a scientific method. It has the character of dialectic in scientific community, but it is not limited to scientists. It is theoretical, empirical, open to a multiplicity of perspective, most notably a diversity of stakeholders.
While this may begin to sound as abstract as the analytical philosophy of the 20th century, to the contrary, it could not be more relevant to everyday experience. In a sense, it is a natural philosophy of life in community that has become confused and frustrated by the fragmented bounty of modernity. It is engaged, accretive, and selective. It is mindful and interpersonal. It accepts both passion and reason. It is both deeply personal and indefatigably responsible.
Yes indeed. That all makes sense. And I am very pleased to see that thinking seems to align with the thinking in the Jena Declaration